Educator Workforce

Planning and ForecastingNational Association for Alternative Certification

2007 Pre-conference Seminar

Facilitators:

Dr. Cyndy Stephens, Director Division for Educator Workforce Research and Development (EWRRAD)

Georgia Professional Standards Commission

Dr. Tom Hall, Director of Special Projects Georgia Professional Standards Commission

Dr. Winifred Nweke, Coordinator of Research and Evaluation Division for Educator Workforce Research and Development (EWRRAD)

Georgia Professional Standards Commission

April 3, 2007

“Spooner” or Planner

When it rains manna from heaven, some people put up an umbrella. Others reach for a big spoon. 1

Traditionally HR is seen as running for the umbrella. No matter what happens, we’ll keep doing what we do the way we’ve always done it. This is no longer true in many leading organizations.

A truly modern HR department is constantly evaluating the workforce and applying its strategies. Every change in the business of education should be seen as an opportunity for HR to act. Whether it’s a new product, organization, or a shift in strategy, the workforce is not only impacted – the workforce impacts.

When change comes your way, don’t run. Participate in change and participate in strategy. Get yourself a seat at the proverbial table.

Drucker, Peter F. “The Daily Drucker.” HarperCollins, 2004. Page 76

Presentation Guide Workforce Focus on School Staffing

• Planning

• Forecasting

Models Demand Supply Policy Discussion

Strategic Workforce Planning (SWP): Long

DefinitionSWP

Analytic, Planning and Forecasting process that connects and directs talent

management activities to ensure an organization has the right people in the right places at the right time

and at the right price to execute its business strategy

“The Business of Schools”“The School Business”

Strategic Workforce Planning: Forecasting Human Capital Needs to Execute Business Strategy. Published By: The Conference BoardSeptember 2006. Report Code: #CB-1391

Strategic Workforce Planning (SWP)Increasingly important to districts AND schools in response to a variety of factors including these SWP

Drivers :

The aging workforce and approaching retirement wave

Current and projected labor shortages

Globalization

Growing use of a contingent, flexible workforce

The need to leverage human capital to enhance return

System and school level mergers/expansions/special status

(Charter Schools), privatization, school “take-overs”, etc.

Evolution of technology and tools to aid teaching or in fact,

teachSource: Strategic Workforce Planning: Forecasting Human Capital Needs to Execute Business Strategy. Published By: The Conference BoardSeptember 2006. Report Code: #CB-1391

Getting “IT” RIGHT•Right number of people with the right skills,

experiences, competencies and values in the right jobs at the right time at the right schools

and districts in all schools and districts…

•And at the Right Price?1.

SWP Short Definition for Schools

and Districts?

Source: Building Successful Organizations Workforce Planning in HHS. 1999. USHSS. http://www.hhs.gov/ohr/workforce/wfpguide.html. hhs.1999..

Public, non-profit and private organizations develop workforce planning models:

• Contain similar in concept and content

• Have differing terminology

• Rely on analysis of present workforce competencies

• Identify competencies needed in the future • Compare present workforce to future needs• Identify competency gaps and surpluses• Prepare plans for building the workforce needed in future

Basic Content: No Surprises

Assess, Act and Lead• Include evaluation design and process

• Assure workforce competency model remains valid and objectives are met

• Requires strong management leadership• Clearly articulated vision, mission, and strategic objectives• Cooperative supportive efforts of staff in several functional areas• In the Federal sector…Strategic planning (GPRA), budget, and

human resources are key players in workforce planning• GPRA plans set organizational direction and articulate measurable

program goals and objectives. The budget process plans for the funding to achieve objectives. Human resources provides tools for identifying competencies needed in the workforce and for recruiting, developing, training, retraining, or placing employees to build the future workforce

Workforce Planning Blueprint

WORKFORCE PLANNING IN COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS. 2004. RAND Corporation

Public Sector Difference

•Public sector agencies address federal and state employment and employ relations requirements in addition to agency planning and forecasting needs

• NCLB Title IIA Teacher Equity

• Staff Performance Accountability

Source: Building Successful Organizations Workforce Planning in HHS. 1999. USHSS. http://www.hhs.gov/ohr/workforce/wfpguide.html. hhs.1999..

Educator Workforce Planning

and Forecasting Model in Georgia

Workforce Planning Questions

What are the characteristics and distribution we will need?

What critical characteristics and distribution in educators and students do we have today?

What critical characteristics and distribution will we have if we do nothing different?

What actions will close the gap?

Education Workforce Planning

Comprehensive process that provides district managers and school leaders with a framework for staffing decisions based on organizational

• Mission• Strategic plan • Budgetary resources • Desired workforce competencies and values

p

Demand Supply

JobAnnual

Continuation

Annual Student Enrollment Student Enrollment Trends

Projected StudentEnrollment

Policy RequirementsProgram

Needs/Enhancements

Current and ReturningWorkforce

Projected New Hires/LossGrowth/"Replacement"

SourcesPolicy

Job Title/FunctionSkills

KnowledgeDispositions

Location Work Assignment

ResponsibilitiesPolicy

Retention in: Profession

District School

Grade/Level Content

CompetenciesBeliefsValues

PerformanceMeasures

Strategic Vision

Educator Planning and Forecasting Model

RecruitmentPlacement

Buy SmartDraw!- purchased copies print this document without a watermark .

Visit www.smartdraw.com or call 1-800-768-3729.Job

Location(s)

Work Assignment(s)

Responsibilities

Source: EWRRAD.GA Professional Standards Commission, 2007

Educator Inventory Inventorying the current distribution of teachers, student

services personnel and administrators provides foundation for building a future workforce

Must also inventory employees’

CompetenciesSkillsKnowledgeCredentials DispositionsPerformanceQuantity

Flexibility for Assignments

“Fit” for the Context of the Assignments

Quantity of Teachers needed for Assignments and Context

Competency Planning Model

Helps to bridge the gap

Now and where organization wants to be in The Future

• Serves two ways to guide management decision making

• Support mission, vision, and goals• Map to guide employees toward achieving mission

Overall organization Specific functional area

Competency Planning Model

• Creates map to display a set of competencies •Aligned with an organization’s mission, vision, and strategic goals•Future-oriented, describing an ideal workforce•Competencies in the model serve as basis for employee management

•Play a key role in decisions•Recruiting•Employee development•Personal development •Performance management

Workforce Forecasting

Business and the people who work today are less predictable, more global, demographically diverse, highly competitive

Having the right people in the right jobs and places is critical for industries with shortages

An understanding of workforce dynamics shows how to meet staffing needs and how to manage proactively to ensure that goals are met

Forecasting is the planning tool to yield long-term results

Hirschman, C.. 2007. Putting Forecasting into Focus. HR Magazine. February

Shaping the Forecast

Segment jobs in school staffing• Strategic

• Core

• Requisite

• Non-core

•Forecast and plan first for the jobs that most affect execution of the organization

strategy and goal attainment

•Forecast and plan next for the jobs that are most affected by successful or unsuccessful execution of the organization strategy and goal attainment

The Supply Factor

    Counts of Teachers Returning by Year (Counts Only the Year of their First Re-Entry)

Base Year

TeacherAttrition

                             

+2 Yrs +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16

1990 4533 558 290 131 98 65 60 35 54 52 59 54 32 28 21 46

1991 4472 498 190 132 82 99 64 51 58 53 34 39 28 24 42  

1992 4190 383 194 102 80 62 55 67 60 40 43 22 24 46    

1993 4282 451 174 119 94 98 59 71 69 55 22 29 39      

1994 4478 481 211 132 91 83 86 79 55 40 27 43        

1995 4719 472 197 142 112 104 98 58 54 48 44          

1996 5455 678 250 187 140 103 87 68 60 61            

1997 4474 460 221 159 120 129 67 60 46              

1998 5806 605 316 205 126 111 81 94                

1999 5827 558 273 164 115 105 90                  

2000 7417 792 449 263 169 155                    

2001 7084 772 408 225 185                      

2002 7503 790 401 264                        

2003 8288 960 472                          

2004 8363 962                            

 

Returns in School Year 2006 

Georgia Teacher Re-entry into the 2006 Public School Workforce:

(Attrition years 1990 – 2004)

    Percentage of Teachers Returning by Year (Counts Only the Year of their First Re-Entry)

                                 

    +2 Yrs +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16

1990 4533 12.3% 6.4% 2.9% 2.2% 1.4% 1.3% 0.8% 1.2% 1.1% 1.3% 1.2% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 1.0%

1991 4472 11.1% 4.2% 3.0% 1.8% 2.2% 1.4% 1.1% 1.3% 1.2% 0.8% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 0.9%  

1992 4190 9.1% 4.6% 2.4% 1.9% 1.5% 1.3% 1.6% 1.4% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.6% 1.1%    

1993 4282 10.5% 4.1% 2.8% 2.2% 2.3% 1.4% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9%      

1994 4478 10.7% 4.7% 2.9% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.2% 0.9% 0.6% 1.0%        

1995 4719 10.0% 4.2% 3.0% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9%          

1996 5455 12.4% 4.6% 3.4% 2.6% 1.9% 1.6% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1%            

1997 4474 10.3% 4.9% 3.6% 2.7% 2.9% 1.5% 1.3% 1.0%              

1998 5806 10.4% 5.4% 3.5% 2.2% 1.9% 1.4% 1.6%                

1999 5827 9.6% 4.7% 2.8% 2.0% 1.8% 1.5%                  

2000 7417 10.7% 6.1% 3.5% 2.3% 2.1%                    

2001 7084 10.9% 5.8% 3.2% 2.6%                      

2002 7503 10.5% 5.3% 3.5%                        

2003 8288 11.6% 5.7%                          

2004 8363 11.5%                            

                                 

                                 

Mean Percentages   10.8% 5.1% 3.1% 2.2% 2.0% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7% 1.0%

(Probability Estimates)                                

Georgia Teacher Re-entry into the 2006 Public School Workforce: (Attrition years 1990 – 2004)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Georgia Teacher Re-entry into the 2006 Public School Workforce: (Attrition years 1990 – 2004)

For any particular year, the current best formula which estimates the minimum number of returning teachers R from the most recently available 10 years of attrition is:

R = .108A2 + .051A3 + .031A4 + .022A5 + .020A6 + .015A7 + .014A8 + .013A9 + .011A10 + .009A11 where A2 is the attrition count 2 years ago, A3 is the attrition count 3 years ago, etc.

Example for 2007:R = .108*(8220) + .051*(8363) + .031*(8288) + .022*(7503) + .020*(7084) + .015*(7417) + .014*(5827) + .013*(5806) + .011*(4474) + .009*(5455)

R = 2244

Georgia Teacher Re-entry into the 2006 Public School Workforce:

(Attrition years 1990 – 2004)

Probability of Teachers Returning after Leaving the GA Public School Workforce (1990 - 2006)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

PR(AY) = Probability of Returningfrom Attrition in Year Y (Observed)

Approximation Function R=.1/(Y-1) where R is the probability ofreturning after leaving Y years ago

Comparison of Sources of Newly Hired Teachers by Workforce Category (2006)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Returning Teachers

GA IHE's

Alternate Routes

Out of State

Note the Contribution of Alternate Route Supply in Critical Areas

Newly Hired Teachers, FY06

9,7489,6089,4348,6278,3038,595

7,466

3,2012,089

1,495

3,880

5,501

3,222

2,710

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

Nu

mb

er

of

Te

ac

he

rs

"Replacement" Hires "Growth" Hires

12,949 new teachers were hired in FY06, a 10.7% increase over FY05’s 11,697 new hires. 9,748 of the new hires replaced the number lost to attrition from the classroom, while 3,201 were hired to meet the growth demand.

Sources of Teacher Hires, FY06

Alternative Certification, 22.0%

Non-Lateral Transfers, 2.7%

Returning, 20.9%

Georgia Traditional Educator

Preparation, 23.5%

Delayed Entry, 2.6%

Out-of-state, 28.3%

Georgia depends on out-of-state sources for more than one-fourth of its new teacher hires.

A rising proportion of new teacher hires are prepared through alternative routes, reaching 22% in FY06, up 2.5% from FY05.

The proportion of traditionally prepared new teacher hires supplied by Georgia colleges decreased slightly from 24.1% in FY05 to 23.5% in FY06.

Top Georgia Higher Education Producers of

New Teachers, FY06 University of Georgia (13.6%) University of West Georgia (8.9%) Valdosta State University (8.6%) Georgia State University (8.6%) Kennesaw State University (7.2%) Georgia Southern University (6.9%) Mercer University (6.3%)

Competency Planning Model

•Provides management and staff with common understanding

• Competency set and behaviors important to the organization

• Well-developed and documented competency models are basis for organizational, training and development activities and for identifying competencies sought in new

recruits

Identifying Competencies

• Competencies are developed based on information collected by studying what top performers do in the defined job context

• Competencies focus on attributes that separate high performers from others in the workforce •Employee questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews with managers and employees provide data

Identifying Competencies

Workforce analysis process spans workforce Supply and Demand analysis aspects of planning

• Competencies are identified using key

elements Workforce skills analysis describes skills required to carry out a function Skills Analysis requires leaders to anticipate how the nature of work in schools and school systems will change

• Leaders and workers at all levels identify

future human resource

requirements based on needed skills

Job analysis, which collects information describing successful job performance. Job analysis focuses on tasks, responsibilities, knowledge and skill requirements as well as other criteria that contribute to successful job performance. Information obtained from employees in this process is used to identify competencies.

Planning and Forecasting Assumptions

Workforce planning focuses on outputs from the planning more than on the process itself. Output results from adapting models, strategies, tools and processes to organizational environment and needs

Concentration on planning outputs …organizationally meaningful to support program objectives, budget requests, staffing needs, and strategic plans

Workforce planning is an inclusive process, drawing together program management, budget, strategic planning, human resources, and program staff and working in partnerships

Planning and Forecasting Assumptions

Training, coaching, technical assistance, and other support will be required as leaders and teachers prepare to use / adapt models, strategies, and tools to meet objectives in a strategic staffing plan

The capacity to do effective workforce planning is developed over time

• Critical to begin carefully and to validate analysis at each step. States, districts and schools should begin with a subset of the workforce [Teachers] and extend planning as skills and experience develop

Educator workforce planning and forecasting processes maintain constant links to program, budget, and organization

strategic planning to assure that the products achieve teacher staffing immediate and future needs

The Demand Factor

Georgia’s Educator Workforce, FY06

110,784

116,292

120,773122,439

124,979

129,032

95,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

115,000

120,000

125,000

130,000

135,000

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

School Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Ed

ucato

rs

Georgia’s total educator workforce rose to 129,032, an increase of 3.2% from the 124,979 in FY05.

Student Enrollment Projections

1,684,498

1,730,652

1,779,000

1,829,059

1,598,461

1,270,948

1,311,1261,346,761

1,375,9801,401,291

1,422,9411,444,937

1,496,0121,470,634

1,522,6111,553,437

1,880,395

1,641,047

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

1,500,000

1,600,000

1,700,000

1,800,000

1,900,000

2,000,000

School Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Enrollment

Upper 95% CI

Projected

Lower 95% CI

Enrollment 1,270,948 1,311,126 1,346,7611,375,980 1,401,291 1,422,9411,444,9371,470,634 1,496,012 1,522,611 1,553,437 1,598,461

Upper 95% CI 1,679,6471,724,444 1,772,0841,822,0441,873,8231,926,979

Projected 1,277,704 1,319,410 1,353,9281,382,6881,407,444 1,430,070 1,452,370 1,475,902 1,501,884 1,531,135 1,564,074 1,600,779 1,641,0471,684,498 1,730,652 1,779,0001,829,0591,880,395

Lower 95% CI 1,602,4471,644,552 1,689,2201,735,958 1,784,2951,833,811

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

•Enrollment will likely be close to the projection, and it is unlikely that actual enrollment will be above or below the confidence limits.

•Student enrollment has continued to rise slightly more each year since FY00.

How Many New Babies?Who is Having Them and

When??Year Recorded/Projected Actual/Projected Live births

2005 139735

2006 142018

2007 144301

2008 146585

2009 148868

2010 151152

2011 153435

2012 155719

2013 158002

2014 160286

2015 162569

2016 164853

Student Ethnic Distribution, FY07

Multi-racial2.7%

Hispanic9.2%

American Indian/ Alaskan Native

0.1%

Asian, Pacific Islander

2.9%

Black38.1%

White46.9%

Teacher Ethnic Distribution, FY07

White, 75.9%

Asian, 0.6%American Indian, 0.1%

Black, 22.0%

Multiracial, 0.2%

Hispanic, 1.1%

American Indian Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial White

Experience Groups of Teachers

The decline in the number of teachers with 0-4 years of experience from 28.5% in FY05 to 23.2% in FY06 and the rise in the percentage of teachers in 5-14 and over 30 years experience groups may be partly the function of older new teachers coming into the workforce as Georgia returning or veteran, veteran teachers coming from in- and out-of-state and/or retired teachers returning to work.

0

10

20

30

40

Experience Groups

Perc

ent

FY03 29.2 21.7 15.0 12.1 10.8 8.2 3.1

FY04 29.2 21.3 15.3 11.8 10.5 8.3 3.5

FY05 28.5 21.9 15.6 11.9 9.9 8.5 3.7

FY06 23.2 23.5 17.2 12.2 9.8 8.8 5.3

0-4 years

5-9 years

10-14 years

15-19 years

20-24 years

25-29 years

30+

Age Groups (using Georgia Certified Personnel Information Report and Date of Birth) and Teaching Experience groups (based on Teacher Retirement System [TRS] data)

   

Teaching Experience Groupings        

  0-4.5 4.6-9.59.6-14.5 14.6-19.5 19.6-24.5 24.6-29.5 29.6 and over Total*

Age Groupings 7 6 0 0 1 0 0 14

  44 or Younger 26966 19874 9740 4582 1100 5 2 62269

  45-49 2437 2903 2377 2364 2507 1178 4 13770

  50-59 3186 4137 4096 4760 3462 4157 1722 25520

  60 and older 525 652 579 828 640 445 282 3951

Total   33121 27572 16792 12534 7710 5785 2010 105524

Aging of the Teacher Workforce, FY99-FY06

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

<24 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 >70

Age

Num

ber

of T

each

ers

FY99

FY06

• With an increase in the average and new hire ages of teachers, an increasing proportion of teachers may annually leave the classroom , requiring replacement.

• There is a pronounced bimodal (two group) distribution of age within the teacher ranks, the younger with a modal age of 29 in FY99, and an older group with a modal age of 49 that year. The distribution in FY06 has shifted substantially, with the two modes occurring at ages 36 and 52, respectively.

Fundamentals:

Planning and Forecasting

p

Demand Supply

JobAnnual

Continuation

Annual Student Enrollment Student Enrollment Trends

Projected StudentEnrollment

Policy RequirementsProgram

Needs/Enhancements

Current and ReturningWorkforce

Projected New Hires/LossGrowth/"Replacement"

SourcesPolicy

Job Title/FunctionSkills

KnowledgeDispositions

Location Work Assignment

ResponsibilitiesPolicy

Retention in: Profession

District School

Grade/Level Content

CompetenciesBeliefsValues

PerformanceMeasures

Strategic Vision

Educator Planning and Forecasting Model

RecruitmentPlacement

Buy SmartDraw!- purchased copies print this document without a watermark .

Visit www.smartdraw.com or call 1-800-768-3729.Job

Location(s)

Work Assignment(s)

Responsibilities

Source: EWRRAD.GA Professional Standards Commission, 2007

5 Problems in Human Resource Plans:

Schools and Districts Mathematic and data complexities in computing educator personnel Data volume, points, collection, ownership and comparability and

reporting Lack of certainty about school human resource needs for the future Unknown acquisition “lead time” in recruiting and training for meeting

new hire and placement needs and for promoting or shifting existing personnel

• “Acquisition lead times have become more of a problem in recent years because of the needs for more highly skilled (leadership and classroom professional) personnel. Since this trend is expected to continue in future years, the problem of acquisition lead time creates difficulties for most organizations (schools and districts)…”

Source: http://ww..tamiu.edu/coba/faculty/kohl/book/3.html

Problems in Human Resource Plans:

Schools and Districts Must be updated frequently in states, districts and schools…in which greater

uncertainties exist

• High need, AYP, geographically hard-to-staff, under-representation in faculty demographics, etc.

• Most schools and districts are growing and increasingly complex

• Require more sophisticated approaches to workforce planning when policies are far removed from the action site

• Interdependencies have increased for funding, staffing, preparation, accountability, etc.

• Needed personnel in the traditional teaching and candidate force are in short and shortening supply

• Many planning models have ignored the “real life” side of equitable staffing in schools for high quality, high performing and long-staying teachers and leaders

Source: http://ww..tamiu.edu/coba/faculty/kohl/book/3.html

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

POSIT

IVENEG ATIVE

S W

O T

Buy SmartDraw!- purchased copies print this document without a watermark .

Visit www.smartdraw.com or call 1-800-768-3729.

A Good SWOT is a Great Beginning

Strengths Opportunities

Weaknesses ThreatsInternal

External

SWOTS tell us what/who we have, need, might do and might not want to do

LEGEND

Pacific Region

Rocky MountainRegion

SouthwestRegion

Midwest Region

NortheastRegion

SoutheastRegion

ID

AZ

UT

MT

WY

NM

CO

AL

FL

SC

TN

KY

INOH

NC

SD

KS

NE

MN

WI

IA

IL

MO

AR

MS

OK

ND

OR

CA NV

WA

TX

AK

PA

ME

VA

NY

CT

WV

MD

NJ

VTNH

MA

DE

RI

USA REGIONS

HI

LA

GA

MI

Buy SmartDraw!- purchased copies print this document without a watermark .

Visit www.smartdraw.com or call 1-800-768-3729.

Can you ANNUALLY and OVER TIME show and/or predict where you get

your In- and Out-of-state veteran and new

teachers?

Forecasting recruitment from the wrong sources begets new forecasts, poorly spent resources and unfilled classrooms

Teacher Staffing

Elementary Teachers

High School Teachers

Special Program Teachers Special Education

ESOL Art, Music, PE

Instructional LeadsRemedialEtc.

Middle Grades Teachers

Students

Buy SmartDraw!- purchased copies print this document without a watermark .

Visit www.smartdraw.com or call 1-800-768-3729.

Students are the only reason that we need teachers and administrators. Students determine how many and what kind of teachers we need from year to year

Inventory Distribution Results: Future Educator

WorkforceChange Over Time or Exponentially

• Managerial Actions• New Superintendent brings priority changes• New state/local executives/policy makers change focus

• Employee Decisions• Teachers stay longer/leave earlier• Administrators leave high need schools for more

affluent ones• School “churn” leaves opening in hardest-to-staff

schools

Inventory Distribution Results: Future Educator

WorkforceChange Over Time or Exponentially

• Policy Changes• Class Size Reduction/Flexibility/Expansion• Technology infusion in classroom instruction and administrative functions• New local/state/national

curriculum/performance/accountability/budget/student services mandates• Shifts in Demand and Supply Factors

• Student enrollment grows/slows exponentially or over time trend• Student academic performance/learning needs/strengths shift• Attrition significantly heightens/lessens• Teacher production slows/grows in areas needed/not needed

School Staffing and IBM

IBM has set out to recreate itself as a globally integrated and high performing enterprise that broke away from the pack on the strength of its human capital, not solely on its portfolio of products

Many school districts experience difficulties attracting and retaining teachers, and the impending retirement of a substantial fraction of public school teachers raises the specter of severe shortages in some public schools. Schools in urban areas serving economically disadvantaged and minority students appear particularly vulnerable. Source: IBM’s HR Takes a Risk. 2007. HR Magazine. SHRM.

So0urce: Why public schools lose teachers.”A. Hanushek, JF Kain, SG Rivkin - Journal of Human Resources

School Staffing Plan:Communication and Continuous

Evaluation

Communication plan must be carefully planned and executed for formal and informal networks• Inside and outside of state, district and schools

• To all employee levels and job types Continuous evaluation of the plan, forecasted data and

progress toward school staffing objectives informs both the immediate and the next teacher recruitment, training, placement, support decisions and retention decisions

Success puts the most qualified teachers with all students in all districts in all schools in a state and nation